Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Counting in the wrong language

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#101

Post by ummonk »

> In other languages, the tens and units of numbers are inverted. For example, in Dutch, 94 is written vierënnegentig (or “four and ninety”), and other research suggests this may make it harder to do certain mathematical processes.

>For example, Dutch kindergarten children performed worse than English children on a task that required them to roughly add together two-digit numbers. This was despite the fact they were slightly older and had better working memory, because Dutch kindergarten starts later than in the UK. But on nearly every other metric, including counting ability, roughly adding and comparing quantities of dots, and simple addition of single-digit numbers, the two groups performed at the same level.

This is rather surprising. I would have guessed that adding numbers verbalized in little endian order would be easier because it makes carryover much more natural.

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#102

Post by yabadabadoes »

ummonk wrote: post #101

> In other languages, the tens and units of numbers are inverted. For example, in Dutch, 94 is written vierënnegentig (or “four and ninety”), and other research suggests this may make it harder to do certain mathematical processes. >For example, Dutch kindergarten children performed worse than English children on a task that required them to roughly add together two-digit numbers. This was despite the fact they were…

I think the key is "roughly".. They could probably catch errors in the ones place better (i.e. verify this summation) and that is potentially distracting in rounding.

Though another issue is that carry right is an exception for the 10s place.

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#104

Post by Zanni »

nkrisc wrote: post #80
ajuc wrote: post #16

As a native Polish speaker it was very strange to me when English speakers say things like "twelve hundreds" for numbers between 1000 and 2000. Nobody in Poland ever says that because we don't separate 200 into 2 words "two hundred" we say "dwieście" (which comes from two hundreds, but is significantly changed and considered separate word not 2 words joined). It sounds to us like "4 twenties" would sound to English p…

> As a native Polish speaker it was very strange to me when English speakers say things like "twelve hundreds" for numbers between 1000 and 2000 Minor nitpick but people will say, "twelve hundred" not "twelve hundreds" (at least in all of my experience growing up in the US). The reason being, you have eight hundred, nine hundred, (we don't talk about ten hundred), eleven hundred, twelve hundred, and so on. It's kind…

Minor nitpick nitpick: except for years, e.g., I don't remember exactly when the Magna Carta was signed, but it was somewhere in the twelve-hundreds.

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#105

Post by ummonk »

yabadabadoes wrote: post #102
ummonk wrote: post #101

> In other languages, the tens and units of numbers are inverted. For example, in Dutch, 94 is written vierënnegentig (or “four and ninety”), and other research suggests this may make it harder to do certain mathematical processes. >For example, Dutch kindergarten children performed worse than English children on a task that required them to roughly add together two-digit numbers. This was despite the fact they were…

I think the key is "roughly".. They could probably catch errors in the ones place better (i.e. verify this summation) and that is potentially distracting in rounding. Though another issue is that carry right is an exception for the 10s place.

Oh good catch. I missed that it was asking for rough rather than exact addition. That is the whole point of big endian - that you lead with the most impactful part.

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#106

Post by grawprog »

seszett wrote: post #33
otikik wrote: post #13

I thank the French for the metric system. But their numbers between 70 and 100 are bonkers. 70 is pronunced "60 10". 71 is "60 11". And so on until 80, which is pronounced, obviously, "4 20". 81 is "4 20 1". It goes up to 90, which is "4 20 10". 91 is "4 20 11". The craziness continues until 100, which is, thankfully, a different word ("cent", instead of "4 20 20", or, dear lord, "60 40"). But in 170 it all comes bac…

Canada uses the same numbers as France. Only Belgium and Switzerland use other words for 70 and 90, and just a few parts of French-speaking Switzerland use huitante for 80, but most say quatre-vingt like in France.

Yup can concur it is like that in Canada. I never understood it. The 10's are weird two. Onze, douze, treize, quatorze, quinze and seize for 11-16(sorry the spelling's likely wrong.) Then dix-sept, dix-huit, dix-neuf(10 7, 10 8 10 9) for 17-19. Then the 20's and up just the 10's column number style.

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#107

Post by [deleted] »

otikik wrote: post #13

I thank the French for the metric system. But their numbers between 70 and 100 are bonkers. 70 is pronunced "60 10". 71 is "60 11". And so on until 80, which is pronounced, obviously, "4 20". 81 is "4 20 1". It goes up to 90, which is "4 20 10". 91 is "4 20 11". The craziness continues until 100, which is, thankfully, a different word ("cent", instead of "4 20 20", or, dear lord, "60 40"). But in 170 it all comes bac…

[deleted]

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#108

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

seszett wrote: post #33
otikik wrote: post #13

I thank the French for the metric system. But their numbers between 70 and 100 are bonkers. 70 is pronunced "60 10". 71 is "60 11". And so on until 80, which is pronounced, obviously, "4 20". 81 is "4 20 1". It goes up to 90, which is "4 20 10". 91 is "4 20 11". The craziness continues until 100, which is, thankfully, a different word ("cent", instead of "4 20 20", or, dear lord, "60 40"). But in 170 it all comes bac…

Canada uses the same numbers as France. Only Belgium and Switzerland use other words for 70 and 90, and just a few parts of French-speaking Switzerland use huitante for 80, but most say quatre-vingt like in France.

That's funny. I learned French from a Belgian woman and I called 80 "octante" until I was formally taught French and switched to quatre-vingt to avoid sounding like a hick.

Did I somehow come up with "octante"? Is it not used in Belgium, or anywhere else? It's true that it sounds a lot more Greek (my native language) than "huitante".

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#109

Post by rdiddly »

twiceaday wrote: post #97
otikik wrote: post #13

I thank the French for the metric system. But their numbers between 70 and 100 are bonkers. 70 is pronunced "60 10". 71 is "60 11". And so on until 80, which is pronounced, obviously, "4 20". 81 is "4 20 1". It goes up to 90, which is "4 20 10". 91 is "4 20 11". The craziness continues until 100, which is, thankfully, a different word ("cent", instead of "4 20 20", or, dear lord, "60 40"). But in 170 it all comes bac…

Interestingly “Four score and seven years ago” is "4 20 7" meaning 87.

Yep, that'd be the 87 years from 1776 (Declaration of Independence) to 1863 when the speech was given.

Re: Counting in the wrong language

#110

Post by nwallin »

brockwhittaker wrote: post #93
mitchty wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm slightly confused as a native English speaker here. zwei und vierzig versus zwei hundert vierzig are radically different to my ears. The counting thing is annoying but not as annoying as French numbers in my not so humble opinion. Though I guess English had it at one point with things like 4 score and 7 years ago (a score being 20 years, so 87 years ago) Guess maybe I'm weird but outside of the "flip last two num…

French numbers are actually quite easy though if you learn even a little bit of French. You don’t think of quatre-vingt dix as four-twenties ten, you just think of it as ninety just like in English. I suspect the same is true even for native speakers, your brain is going to pretty quickly map to the actual number it represents rather than the arithmetic statement.

I'm thirty eight years old. I've been using standard units my entire life. They just make sense. Eight cups? Oh that's half a gallon, or two quarts. Eight ounces of melted butter? Oh that's one cup. Probably two sticks unless it's that bullshit imported European butter, ugh. My indoctrinated brain can't imagine it any other way. "You want me to add what grams.. what? Who measures sugar by weight?!"

French numbers are the same way. If the only system you've ever used is a shitty system, the shitty system is the only logical way of doing things. Human brains are smart, but also dumb. That's actually the point of this article.

I am slowly training myself to intuit SI units, especially at work. It's better, and I know that, but it's fucking hard. I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to be able to replace it for cooking. It's just too deep. Probably the same as a Frenchman who learned to count in French. Learning to cook with standard units was coincident with learning to speak. You simply can't renovate those memories.

They're still bad systems though.

Post reply on HN